Hillary Clinton: Electing a Foreign Spy for President? James Petras

During her 4 years as Secretary of
State of the United States (2009- 2014), Hillary Clinton controlled US foreign
policy. She had access to the most confidential information and state
documents, numbering in the tens of thousands, from all of the major government
departments and agencies, Intelligence, FBI, the Pentagon, Treasury and the
office of the President. She had unfettered access to vital and secret
information affecting all US policy in all the key regions of the empire.
Today, Mme. Clinton’s critics have focused on the technical aspects of her
violations of State Department procedures and guidelines regarding handling of
official correspondences and her outright lies on her use of her own private
e-mail server for official state business, including the handling of highly
classified material in violation of Federal Records laws, as well as her hiding
official documents from the Freedom of Information Act and concocting her own
system exempt from the official oversight which all other government official
accept. For many analysts, therefore, the issue is procedural, moral and
ethical. Mme. Clinton had placed herself above and beyond the norms of State
Department discipline. This evidence of her arrogance, dishonesty and blatant
disregard for rules should disqualify her from becoming the President 1 of the
United States. While revelations of Clinton’s misuse of official documents, her
private system of communication and correspondence and the shredding of tens of
thousands of her official interchanges, including top secret documents are
important issues to investigate, these do not address the paramount political
question: On whose behalf was Secretary Clinton carrying out the business of US
foreign policy, out of the review of government oversight?

The Political Meaning and Motivation of
Clinton’s High Crimes Against the State

Secretary Clinton’s private, illegal
handling of official US documents has aroused a major FBI investigation into
the nature of her activities. This is separate from the investigation by the
Office of the Inspector General and implies national security violations. There
are several lines of inquiry against Mme. Clinton: (1)Did she work with, as yet
unnamed, foreign governments and intelligence services to strengthen their
positions and against the interest of the United States? (2)Did she provide
information on the operations and policy positions of various key US
policymakers to competitors, adversaries or allies undermining the activities
of military, intelligence and State Department officials? 2 (3)Did she seek to
enhance her personal power within the US administration to push of her
aggressive policy of serial pre-emptive wars over and against veteran State
Department and Pentagon officials who favored traditional diplomacy and less
violent confrontation? (4)Did she prepare a ‘covert team’, using foreign or
dual national operative, to lay the groundwork for her bid for the presidency
and her ultimate goal of supreme military and political power?

Contextualizing Clinton’s Clandestine
Operations

There is no doubt that Mme. Clinton
exchanged minor as well as major official documents and letters via her private
e-mail system. Personal, family and even intimate communications may have been
carried on the same server. But the key issue is that a large volume of highly
confidential government information flowed to Clinton via an unsecured private
‘back channel’ allowing her to conduct state business secretly with her
correspondents. Just who were Secretary Clinton’s most enduring, persistent and
influential correspondents? What types of exchanges were going on, which
required avoiding normal oversight and a wanton disregard for security?
Clinton’s covert war policies, which included the violent overthrow of the
elected Ukraine government, were carried out by her ‘Lieutenant’ UnderSecretary
of State Victoria Nuland, a virulent neo-conservative holdover from the
previous Bush Administration and someone committed to provoking 3 Russia and to
enhancing Israel’s power in the Middle East. Clinton’s highly dangerous and
economically destabilizing ‘brainchild’ of militarily encircling China, the
so-called ‘pivot to Asia’, would have required clandestine exchanges with elements
in the Pentagon – out of the State Department and possibly Executive oversight.
In other words, within the Washington political circuit, Secretary Clinton’s
escalation of nuclear war policies toward Russia and China required secretive correspondences,
which would not necessarily abide with the policies and intelligence estimates
of other US government agencies and with private business interests. Clinton
was deeply engaged in private exchanges with several unsavory overseas
political regimes, including Saudi Arabia, Israel, Honduras and Turkey
involving covert violent and illegal activities. She worked with the
grotesquely corrupt opposition parties in Venezuela, Argentina and Brazil
Clinton’s correspondence with the Honduran armed forces and brutal oligarchs
led to the military coup against the elected President Zelaya, its violent
aftermath and the phony election of a pliable puppet. Given the
government-death squad campaign against Honduran civil society activists,
Clinton would certainly want to cover up her direct role in organizing the
coup. Likewise, Mme. Clinton would have destroyed her communications with
Turkish President Erdogan’s intelligence operations in support of Islamist
terrorist-mercenaries in Syria and Iraq. 4 Secretary Clinton’s e-mail would
have shown her commitment to the Saudis when they brutally invaded Bahrain and
Yemen to suppress independent civil society organizations and regional
political rivals. But it is Clinton’s long-term, large-scale commitment to
Israel that goes far beyond her public speeches of loyalty and fealty to the
Jewish state. Hillary Clinton’s entire political career has been intimately
dependent on Zionist money, Zionist mass media propaganda and Zionist
Democratic Party operations. In exchange for Clinton’s dependence on political
support from the Zionist power configuration in the US, she would have become
the major conduit of confidential information from the US to Israel and the
transmission belt promoting Israel-centric policies within the US government. The
entire complex of Clinton-Israel linkages and correspondences has compromised
the US intelligence services, the State Department and Pentagon. Secretary
Clinton went to extraordinary lengths to serve Israel, even undermining the
interests of the United States. It is bizarre that she would resort such a
crude measure, setting up a private e-mail server to conduct state business.
She blithely ignored official State Department policy and oversight and
forwarded over 1,300 confidential documents and 22 highly sensitive top-secret
documents related to the ‘Special Access Program’. She detailed US military and
intelligence documents on US strategic policies on 5 Syria, Iraq, Palestine and
other vital regimes. The Inspector General’s report indicates that ‘she was
warned’ about her practice. It is only because of the unusual stranglehold Tel
Aviv and Israel’s US Fifth Column have over the US government and judiciary
that her actions have not been prosecuted as high treason. It is the height of
hypocrisy that government whistleblowers have been persecuted and jailed by the
Obama Administration for raising concerns within the Inspector General system
of oversight, while Secretary Clinton is on her way to the Presidency of the
United States!

Conclusion

Many of Clinton’s leading critics,
among them two dozen former CIA agents, have presented a myth that Hillary’s
main offence is her ‘carelessness in handling official documents and her
deliberate deceptions and lies to the government. These critics have
trivialized, personalized and moralized what is really deliberate, highly
politicized state behavior. Mme. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was not
‘careless in managing an insecure mail server’. If Clinton was engaged in
political liaison with foreign officials she deliberately used a private email
server to avoid political detection by security elements within the US
government. She lied to the US government on the use and destruction of
official state documents because the documents were political exchanges between
a traitor and its host. 6 The 22 top secret reports on ‘Special Access
Programs’ which Clinton handled via her private computer provided foreign
governments with the names and dates of US operatives and proxies; allowed for
counterresponses inflicting losses of billions of dollars in program damages
and possibly lost lives. The Inspector General Report (IGP) deals only with the
surface misdeeds. The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has gone a step
further in identifying the political linkages, but faces enormous obstacles
from Hilary’s domestic allies in pursuing a criminal investigation. The FBI,
whose director is a political appointee, has suffered a series of defeats in
its attempts to investigate and prosecute spying to Israel, including the AIPAC
espionage case of Rosen and Weismann and in their long held opposition to the
release of the notorious US-Israeli spy, Jonathan Pollard. The power of the
Zionists within the government halted their investigation of a dozen Israeli
spies captured in the US right after the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Clinton’s choice of conducting secret private communications, despite several
years of State Department warnings to abide by their strict security
regulations, is an indication of her Zionist power base, and not a mere
reflection of her personal hubris or individual arrogance. Clinton has
circulated more vital top-secret documents and classified material than
Jonathan Pollard. 7 President Obama and other top Cabinet officials share her
political alliances, but they operate through ‘legitimate’ channels and without
compromising personnel, missions, funding or programs. The executive leadership
now faces the problem of how to deal with a traitor, who may be the Democratic
Party nominee for US President, without undermining the US quest for global
power. How does the executive leadership and intelligence agencies back a
foreign spy for president, who has been deeply compromised and can be
blackmailed? This may explain why the FBI, NSA, and CIA hesitate to press charges;
hesitate to even seriously investigate, despite the obvious nature of her
offenses. Most of all it explains why there is no indication of the identity of
Secretary Clinton’s correspondents in the various reports so far available. As
Sherlock Holmes would say, “We are entering in deep waters, Watson”.